update_contact

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only indicate that the tool is non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds a crucial behavioral detail: it performs a partial update, modifying only the passed fields and leaving everything else untouched. This goes meaningfully beyond what annotations or the schema communicate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key partial-update caveat. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple update tool with a required id and 100%-documented optional fields, the description covers the one non-obvious behavior needed to call it correctly. No output schema exists, but the response format is not essential for invoking the tool; the main gap is the lack of workflow guidance relative to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that all fields except id are effectively optional and that omitted fields retain their existing values. This affects how an agent should construct an update call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Update') and a specific resource ('existing Quipu contact'), which clearly distinguishes it from create_contact, get_contact, list_contacts, and delete_contact. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus create_contact or delete_contact. The word 'existing' implies an id must reference an already-created contact, and the schema confirms id is required, but there is no stated workflow, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.